Quality of life after intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer with a hydrogel spacer. Matched-pair analysis

Prospective, Randomized Controlled Pivotal Trial of Biodegradable Balloon Rectal Spacer for Prostate Radiation Therapy

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

Rectal spacers have been shown to reduce rectal side effects in patients receiving prostate radiation. However, concerns remain regarding precise and reproducible gel injection. We evaluated efficacy and safety of a novel rectoprostatic spacer balloon that allows potential for controlled, adaptable deployment. This study tested co-primary hypotheses: (1) balloon spacer would result in ≥25% reduction of rectal V70 in >75% of subjects and (2) implantation procedure-related and rectal ≥grade 1 adverse events within 6 months (duration ≥2 days, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0) would be noninferior in balloon versus control subjects.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 222 subjects were enrolled at 16 centers. All patients had T1-T3 prostate cancer without magnetic resonance imaging evidence of posterior extraprostatic invasion. Randomization was 2:1 (balloon: control) and subject-blinded. Patients underwent transperineal transrectal ultrasound axial and sagittal-guided fiducial placement ± balloon, followed by Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy (81 Gy in 1.8 Gy fractions or biologically equivalent hypofractionated dose). For efficacy comparisons, plans were generated by a central core lab on pre- and postimplant computed tomography scans.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was met, with 97.9% of balloon subjects (139/142) having rectal V70 reduction >25% (P < .001). Mean V70 was 7.0 % pre- versus 1.1% postimplant. The primary safety endpoint was met with balloon subjects experiencing fewer ≥grade 1 events, 18% versus 23% (P < .001 for noninferiority). On predefined secondary endpoint of ≥grade 2 events, rates trended lower in balloon subjects (4.3% vs 6.5%, P = .527). Mean perirectal spacing was 19 ± 3.7 mm and maintained through radiation treatment (18 ± 3.9 mm). Balloon resorption was observed on 6-month computed tomography in 98.5% (133/135) of subjects. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index quality of life instrument was collected throughout study, and did not differ statistically between the study arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Biodegradable rectal spacer balloon was effective in significantly reducing dose to rectum, and associated with decreased cumulative rectal plus implantation-related adverse events. Balloon resorption was consistently observed by 6 months.

SpaceOAR Hydrogel Spacer for Reducing Radiation Toxicity During Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between SpaceOAR and radiation dosing, toxicity and quality-of-life vs no spacer across all radiotherapy modalities for prostate cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase was performed from database inception through May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full papers. Data extraction was performed, and quality assessed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second, using a third reviewer as required. The synthesis was narrative.

RESULTS

19 studies (3,622 patients) were included (only 1 randomized controlled trial, in image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IG-IMRT), 18 comparatives non-randomized controlled trials in external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT), brachytherapy, and combinations thereof). No hypofractionation studies were found. Regardless of radiotherapy type, SpaceOAR significantly reduced rectal radiation dose (eg, V40 average difference -6.1% in high dose-rate brachytherapy plus IG-IMRT to -9.1% in IG-IMRT) and reduced gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities (eg, late gastrointestinal toxicity 1% vs 6% (P = .01), late genitourinary toxicity of 15% vs 32% (P < .001) in stereotactic body radiotherapy). Improvements were observed in most Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite quality-of-life domains (eg, bowel function score decrease at 3 and 6 months: Average change of zero vs -6.25 and -3.57 respectively in low dose-rate brachytherapy plus EBRT).

CONCLUSION

The randomized controlled trial in IG-IMRT demonstrated that SpaceOAR reduces rectal radiation dose and late gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities, with urinary, bowel, and sexual quality-of-life improvement. These advantages were verified in observational studies in various radiotherapy types. Further research is required in hypofractionation.

Dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review

SpaceOAR, an absorbable polyethylene glycol hydrogel, increases the space between the prostate and rectum to reduce the radiation received by the rectum during prostate cancer radiation therapy. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate controlled studies on the dosimetric and clinical outcomes of SpaceOAR in men undergoing external beam radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. Eight studies were included in the review. All of the studies showed SpaceOAR to reduce the radiation dose volume to the rectum over numerous dosimetry levels. Of the four studies that assessed toxicity, one reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease acute Grade 1 diarrhoea and two reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease late Grade 1 and Grade ≥2 rectal toxicities. Two studies assessed cumulative incidence of toxicity at 3 years in which one reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease urinary incontinence and Grade ≥1 and Grade ≥2 rectal toxicities, and the other reported SpaceOAR to significantly decrease Grade 1 diarrhoea and Grade 2 proctitis. Moreover, one study reported that fewer SpaceOAR patients experienced 10-point declines in bowel quality of life at 3 years, but another study reported no significant difference in 10-point declines in bowel quality of life between the SpaceOAR and control groups at 5 years. With the current research available, SpaceOAR may be beneficial to those who did not meet the standard rectal dose-volume criteria, have higher risk factors of developing rectal toxicities post-radiation, or wish to decrease the length and costs of radiotherapy by increasing the dose of radiation per fraction.

Association of the Placement of a Perirectal Hydrogel Spacer With the Clinical Outcomes of Men Receiving Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Perirectal spacers are intended to lower the risk of rectal toxic effects associated with prostate radiotherapy. A quantitative synthesis of typical clinical results with specific perirectal spacers is limited.

Objective

To evaluate the association between perirectal hydrogel spacer placement and clinical outcomes of men receiving radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

Data Sources

A systematic search was performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for articles published through September 2019.

Study Selection

Studies comparing men who received a hydrogel spacer vs men who did not receive a spacer (controls) prior to prostate radiotherapy.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Via random-effects meta-analysis, group comparisons were reported using the weighted mean difference for continuous measures and the risk ratio for binary measures.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Procedural results, the percentage volume of rectum receiving at least 70 Gy radiation (v70), early (≤3 months) and late (>3 months) rectal toxic effects, and early and late changes in bowel-related quality of life on the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (minimal clinically important difference, 4 points).

Results

The review included 7 studies (1 randomized clinical trial and 6 cohort studies) involving 1011 men (486 who received a hydrogel spacer and 525 controls), with a median duration of patient follow-up of 26 months (range, 3-63 months). The success rate of hydrogel spacer placement was 97.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-98.8% [5 studies]), and the weighted mean perirectal separation distance was 11.2 mm (95% CI, 10.1-12.3 mm [5 studies]). Procedural complications were mild and transient, occurring in 0% to 10% of patients within the studies. The hydrogel spacer group received 66% less v70 rectal irradiation compared with controls (3.5% vs 10.4%; mean difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -10.5% to -2.5%; P = .001 [6 studies]). The risk of grade 2 or higher rectal toxic effects was comparable between groups in early follow-up (4.5% in hydrogel spacer group vs 4.1% in control group; risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.52-1.28; P = .38 [6 studies]) but was 77% lower in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (1.5% vs 5.7%; risk ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.06-0.99; P = .05 [4 studies]). Changes in bowel-related quality of life were comparable between groups in early follow-up (mean difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -3.1 to 3.4; P = .92 [2 studies]) but were greater in the hydrogel spacer group in late follow-up (mean difference, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.8-8.0; P < .001 [2 studies]).

Conclusions and Relevance

For men receiving prostate radiotherapy, injection of a hydrogel spacer was safe, provided prostate-rectum separation sufficient to reduce v70 rectal irradiation, and was associated with fewer rectal toxic effects and higher bowel-related quality of life in late follow-up.

The role of radioprotective spacers in clinical practice: a review

The delivery of high dose radiotherapy to tumors is often limited by the proximity of the surrounding radiosensitive normal tissues, even using modern techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Previous studies have reported that placement of a spacer can effectively displace normal tissues. So that they are some distance away from the lesion, thus allowing for the safe delivery of high-dose radiation. The application of radioprotective spacers was first reported 30 years ago regarding radiotherapy of tongue and abdominal cancers; more recently, they are increasingly being used in prostate cancer. This review focuses on the published data concerning the features of different types of spacers and their application in various tumor sites. Placement-related complications and the cost-effectiveness of the spacers are also discussed. With the increasing use of high-precision radiotherapy in clinical practice, especially the paradigm-changing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), more robust studies are warranted to further establish the role of radioprotective spacers through materials development and novel placement techniques.

Reducing rectal injury in men receiving prostate cancer radiation therapy: current perspectives

Dose escalation is now the standard of care for the treatment of prostate cancer with radiation therapy. However, the rectum tends to be the dose-limiting structure when treating prostate cancer, given its close proximity. Early and late toxicities can occur when the rectum receives large doses of radiation therapy. New technologies allow for prevention of these toxicities. In this review, we examine the evidence that supports various dose constraints employed to prevent these rectal injuries from occurring. We also examine the use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy and how this compares to older radiation therapy techniques that allow for further sparing of the rectum during a radiation therapy course. We then review the literature on endorectal balloons and the effects of their daily use throughout a radiation therapy course. Tissue spacers are now being investigated in greater detail; these devices are injected into the rectoprostatic fascia to physically increase the distance between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall. Last, we review the use of systemic drugs, specifically statin medications and antihypertensives, as well as their impact on rectal toxicity.

Interdisciplinary consensus statement on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer for prostate radiotherapy based on experience in more than 250 patients

Background

The aim of the study was to reach a consensus on indication and application of a hydrogel spacer based on multicentre experience and give new users important information to shorten the learning curve for this innovative technique.

Methods

The interdisciplinary meeting was attended by radiation oncologists and urologists, each with experience of 23 – 138 hydrogel injections (SpaceOAR®) in prostate cancer patients before dose-escalated radiotherapy. User experience was discussed and questions were defined to comprise practical information relevant for successful hydrogel injection and treatment. Answers to the defined key questions were generated. Hydrogel-associated side effects were collected to estimate the percentage, treatment and prognosis of potential risks.

Results

The main indication for hydrogel application was dose-escalated radiotherapy for histologically confirmed low or intermediate risk prostate cancer. It was not recommended in locally advanced prostate cancer. The injection or implantation was performed under transrectal ultrasound guidance via the transperineal approach after prior hydrodissection. The rate of injection-related G2-toxicity was 2% (n = 5) in a total of 258 hydrogel applications. The most frequent complication (n = 4) was rectal wall penetration, diagnosed at different intervals after hydrogel injection and treated conservatively.

Conclusions

A consensus was reached on the application of a hydrogel spacer. Current experience demonstrated feasibility, which could promote initiation of this method in more centres to reduce radiation-related gastrointestinal toxicity of dose-escalated IGRT. However, a very low rate of a potential serious adverse event could not be excluded. Therefore, the application should carefully be discussed with the patient and be balanced against potential benefits.

Decision analysis model evaluating the cost of a temporary hydrogel rectal spacer before prostate radiation therapy to reduce the incidence of rectal complications

PURPOSE

We conducted a decision analysis to evaluate the cost effectiveness of a newly Food and Drug Administration approved rectal spacer gel (SpaceOAR, Augmenix) for the reduction of rectal toxicity of prostate radiation therapy (RT).

METHODS

A decision tree model (TreeAge Pro) was used to compare the strategy of pretherapy placement of a spacing hydrogel before RT to RT alone. The model compared costs associated with rectal complications because of rectal toxicity over a 10-year period across 3 different RT modalities. Rectal toxicity rates were estimated from studies on conformal RT dose escalation, high-dose stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and low-dose SBRT. Rectal toxicity reduction rates (baseline reduction 70%) were estimated from recently published 15 month data using a rectal spacer. Direct and indirect cost estimates for established grades of rectal toxicity were based on national and institutional costs. Reduction in short-term complications were assumed to carry forward to a reduction in long-term toxicity. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The overall standard management cost for conformal RT was $3,428 vs. $3,946 with rectal spacer for an incremental cost of $518 over 10 years. A 1-way sensitivity analyses showed the breakeven cost of spacer at $2,332 or a breakeven overall risk reduction of 86% at a cost of $2,850. For high-dose SBRT, spacer was immediately cost effective with a savings of $2,640 and breakeven risk reduction at 36%. However, 2-way spacer cost to risk reduction sensitivity analyses were performed.

CONCLUSION

The use of a rectal spacer for conformal RT results in a marginal cost increase with a significant reduction in rectal toxicity assuming recently published 15 month rectal toxicity reduction is maintained over 10 years. For high-dose SBRT it was cost effective. Further studies would be necessary to validate the long-term benefits of rectal spacers.

Current role of spacers for prostate cancer radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is an established curative treatment method for prostate cancer. Optimal tumor control rates can only be achieved with high local doses, associated with a considerable risk of rectal toxicity. Apart from already widely adapted technical advances, as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, the application of spacers placed between the prostate and rectum has been increasingly used in the last years. Biodegradable spacers, including hydrogel, hyaluronic acid, collagen or an implantable balloon, can be injected or inserted in a short procedure under transrectal ultrasound guidance via a transperineal approach. A distance of about 1.0-1.5 cm is usually achieved between the rectum and prostate, excluding the rectal wall from the high isodoses. Several studies have shown well tolerated injection procedures and treatments. Apart from considerable reduction of rectal irradiation, a prospective randomized trial demonstrated a reduction of rectal toxicity after hydrogel injection in men undergoing prostate image-guided intensity-modulated radiation therapy. The results are encouraging for continuing evaluation in dose escalation, hypofractionation, stereotactic radiotherapy or re-irradiation trials in the future.

Prostate hypofractionated radiation therapy with injection of hyaluronic acid: acute toxicities in a phase 2 study

PURPOSE

Hypofractionated radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer can be developed only if the risk of rectal toxicity is controlled. In a multicenter phase 2 trial, hypofractionated irradiation was combined with an injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) to preserve the rectal wall. Tolerance of the injection and acute toxicity rates are reported.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The study was designed to assess late grade 2 toxicity rates. The results described here correspond to the secondary objectives. Acute toxicity was defined as occurring during RT or within 3 months after RT and graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. HA tolerance was evaluated with a visual analog scale during the injection and 30 minutes after injection and then by use of the Common Terminology Criteria at each visit.

RESULTS

From 2010 to 2012, 36 patients with low-risk to intermediate-risk prostate cancer were included. The HA injection induced a mean pain score of 4.6/10 ± 2.3. Thirty minutes after the injection, 2 patients still reported pain (2/10 and 3/10), which persisted after the intervention. Thirty-three patients experienced at least 1 acute genitourinary toxicity and 20 patients at least 1 acute gastrointestinal toxicity. Grade 2 toxicities were reported for 19 patients with urinary obstruction, frequency, or both and for 1 patient with proctitis. No grade 3 or 4 toxicities were reported. At the 3-month visit, 4 patients described grade 2 obstruction or frequency, and no patients had any grade 2 gastrointestinal toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

The injection of HA makes it possible to deliver hypofractionated irradiation over 4 weeks with a dose per fraction of > 3 Gy, with limited acute rectal toxicity.

A review of rectal toxicity following permanent low dose-rate prostate brachytherapy and the potential value of biodegradable rectal spacers

Permanent radioactive seed implantation provides highly effective treatment for prostate cancer that typically includes multidisciplinary collaboration between urologists and radiation oncologists. Low dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy offers excellent tumor control rates and has equivalent rates of rectal toxicity when compared with external beam radiotherapy. Owing to its proximity to the anterior rectal wall, a small portion of the rectum is often exposed to high doses of ionizing radiation from this procedure. Although rare, some patients develop transfusion-dependent rectal bleeding, ulcers or fistulas. These complications occasionally require permanent colostomy and thus can significantly impact a patient's quality of life. Aside from proper technique, a promising strategy has emerged that can help avoid these complications. By injecting biodegradable materials behind Denonviller's fascia, brachytherpists can increase the distance between the rectum and the radioactive sources to significantly decrease the rectal dose. This review summarizes the progress in this area and its applicability for use in combination with permanent LDR brachytherapy.

Dependence of the safe rectum dose on the CTV-PTV margin size and treatment technique

BACKGROUND

Late rectal injury is a common side effect of external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate what total dose may be safely delivered for prostate patients for 3DCRT and IMRT techniques and the CTV-PTV margin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3DCRT and IMRT plans were prepared for 12 patients. For each patient PTV was defined with CTV-PTV margins of 0.4, 0.6, …, 1.0 cm, and total doses of 70, 72, …, 80 Gy, with 2 Gy dose fraction. NTCP values for the rectum were calculated using the Lyman model. Both techniques were compared in terms of population mean DVH.

RESULTS

Significantly smaller NTCPs for IMRT were obtained. For both techniques diminishing the margin CTV-PTV of 2 mm leads to decreasing the NTCP of about 0.03. For total dose of 80 Gy the NTCP was smaller than 10% for the 4 mm margin only. The QUANTEC dose volume constraints were more frequently fulfilled for the IMRT technique than for the 3DCRT technique.

CONCLUSIONS

The IMRT technique is safer for prostate patients than the 3DCRT. If very high total doses are applied the CTV-PTV margin of 0.4 cm and the IMRT technique should be used. If the CTV-PTV margin of 0.6 cm is applied, the NTCP is smaller than 10% for the 3DCRT and IMRT techniques for the total doses smaller than 74 Gy and 78 Gy, respectively.

Spacer application for prostate cancer radiation therapy

Definitive radiotherapy is a well-recognized treatment option for localized prostate cancer. Rectum toxicity is the dose-limiting toxicity. Dose-volume correlations have been reported in many studies. The application of a spacer to increase the distance between the prostate and anterior rectal wall is an innovative technique, considerably reducing the dose to the rectum. Hyaluronic acid, human collagen, an inflatable balloon or hydrogel are potential materials to create the desired effect. The number of clinical studies is rapidly increasing. Well-tolerated injection or implantation techniques and low rectal treatment-related toxicity have been demonstrated in prospective studies. Long-term clinical results and the results of randomized studies are needed to better define the beneficial effect for the patient.

Optimization of radiation therapy techniques for prostate cancer with prostate-rectum spacers: a systematic review

Dose-escalated radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer improves disease control but is also associated with worse rectal toxicity. A spacer placed between the prostate and rectum can be used to displace the anterior rectal wall outside of the high-dose radiation regions and potentially minimize radiation-induced rectal toxicity. This systematic review focuses on the published data regarding the different types of commercially available prostate-rectum spacers. Dosimetric results and preliminary clinical data using prostate-rectum spacers in patients with localized prostate cancer treated by curative radiation therapy are compared and discussed.

Application of a hydrogel spacer for postoperative salvage radiotherapy of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

In contrast to primary radiotherapy, no reports are available for a hydrogel spacer application in postoperative salvage radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

CASE REPORT

A 77-year-old patient presented 20 years after radical prostatectomy with a digitally palpable local recurrence at the urethrovesical anastomosis (PSA 5.5 ng/ml). The hydrogel spacer (10 ml, SpaceOAR™) was injected between the local recurrence and rectal wall under transrectal ultrasound guidance. Treatment planning was performed with an intensity-modulated technique up to a total dose of 76 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. The same planning was performed based on computed tomography before spacer injection for comparison.

RESULTS

The local recurrence, initially directly on the rectal wall, could be displaced more than  1 cm from the rectal wall after hydrogel injection. With a mean total dose of 76 Gy to the planning target volume, rectal wall volumes included in the 70 Gy, 60 Gy, 50 Gy isodoses were 0 cm(3), 0 cm(3), and 0.4 cm(3) with a spacer and 2.9 cm(3), 4.5 cm(3), and 6.2 cm(3) without a spacer, respectively. The patient reported rectal urgency during radiotherapy, completely resolving after the end of treatment. The PSA level was 5.4 ng/ml a week before the end of radiotherapy and dropped to 0.9 ng/ml 5 months after radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

A hydrogel spacer was successfully applied for dose-escalated radiotherapy in a patient with macroscopic local prostate cancer recurrence at the urethrovesical anastomosis to decrease the dose at the rectal wall. This option can be considered in specifically selected patients.

[Prostate-rectum spacers: optimization of prostate cancer irradiation]

In the curative radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer, improvements in biochemical control observed with dose escalation have been counterbalanced by an increase in radiation-induced toxicity. The injection of biodegradable spacers between prostate and rectum represents a new frontier in the optimization of radiotherapy treatments for patients with localized disease. Transperineal injection of different types of spacers under transrectal ultrasound guidance allows creating a 7-to-20 mm additional space between the prostate and the anterior rectal wall lasting 3 to 12 months. Dosimetrically, a relative reduction in the rectal volume receiving at least 70 Gy (V70) in the order of 43% to 84% is observed with all types of spacers, regardless of the radiotherapy technique used. Preliminary clinical results show for all spacers a good tolerance and a possible reduction in the acute side effects rate. The aim of the present systematic review of the literature is to report on indications as well as dosimetric and clinical advantages of the different types of prostate-rectum spacers commercially available (hydrogel, hyaluronic acid, collagen, biodegradable balloon).

A dosimetric study of polyethylene glycol hydrogel in 200 prostate cancer patients treated with high-dose rate brachytherapy±intensity modulated radiation therapy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We sought to analyze the effect of polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel on rectal doses in prostate cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between July 2009 and April 2013, we treated 200 clinically localized prostate cancer patients with high-dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy±intensity modulated radiation therapy. Half of the patients received a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided transperineal injection of 10mL PEG hydrogel (DuraSeal™ Spinal Sealant System; Covidien, Mansfield, MA) in their anterior perirectal fat immediately prior to the first HDR brachytherapy treatment and 5mL PEG hydrogel prior to the second HDR brachytherapy treatment. Prostate, rectal, and bladder doses and prostate-rectal distances were calculated based upon treatment planning CT scans.

RESULTS

There was a success rate of 100% (100/100) with PEG hydrogel implantation. PEG hydrogel significantly increased the prostate-rectal separation (mean±SD, 12±4mm with gel vs. 4±2mm without gel, p<0.001) and significantly decreased the mean rectal D2 mL (47±9% with gel vs. 60±8% without gel, p<0.001). Gel decreased rectal doses regardless of body mass index (BMI).

CONCLUSIONS

PEG hydrogel temporarily displaced the rectum away from the prostate by an average of 12mm and led to a significant reduction in rectal radiation doses, regardless of BMI.

Learning curve in the application of a hydrogel spacer to protect the rectal wall during radiotherapy of localized prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of increasing experience on hydrogel dimensions, rectal dose, and acute toxicity, and to discuss important technical issues gained from this experience.

METHODS

Sixty-four consecutive patients with prostate cancer were included in this analysis (G1/G2 corresponding to first/second 32 patients) after injection of 10 mL spacer gel. All patients were treated with a 5-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy technique to 76-78 Gy. Treatment toxicity was evaluated with a validated quality of life questionnaire (expanded prostate cancer index composite) before and after radiotherapy.

RESULTS

Rectum volume could be entirely excluded from the planning target volume in 31% in G1 vs 56% in G2 (P = .04). Increasing symmetry was detected comparing the first 15 patients to the subsequent rest, with mean differences between right and left of 0.6 cm vs 0.3 cm at the midgland (P = .03). Mean distance between prostate and anterior rectal wall increased from 0.8 cm/1.1 cm/0.8 cm (G1) at the base/middle/apex to 1.3 cm/1.5 cm/1.2 cm (G2), respectively, so that the dose to the rectum decreased significantly (6% vs 2% of the volume inside the 70 Gy isodose; P <.01). Bowel function and bother score changes were smaller comparing baseline with last day of radiotherapy levels (mean 16/18 in G1 vs 9/12 in G2).

CONCLUSION

A learning curve could be demonstrated in our patient population, respecting improved and more symmetrical spacer placement, improved treatment planning, and less treatment-related acute toxicity. Several important technical aspects need to be considered.

Treatment planning after hydrogel injection during radiotherapy of prostate cancer

PURPOSE

Imaging for treatment planning shortly after hydrogel injection is optimal for practical purposes, reducing the number of appointments. The aim was to evaluate the actual difference between early and late imaging.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Treatment planning computed tomography (CT) was performed shortly after injection of 10 ml hydrogel (CT1) and 1-2 weeks later (CT2) for 3 patients. The hydrogel was injected via the transperineal approach after dissecting the space between the prostate and rectum with a saline/lidocaine solution of at least 20-ml. Hydrogel volume and distances between the prostate and rectal wall were compared. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans up to a dose of 78 Gy were generated (rectum V70 < 20 %, rectum V50 < 50 %; with the rectum including hydrogel volume for planning).

RESULTS

A mean planning treatment volume of 104 cm(3) resulted for a prostate volume of 37 cm(3). Hydrogel volumes of 30 and 10 cm(3) were determined in CT1 and CT2, respectively. Distances between the prostate and rectal wall at the levels of the base, middle, and apex were 1.7 cm, 1.6 cm, 1.5 cm in CT1 and 1.3 cm, 1.2 cm, 0.8 cm in CT2, respectively, corresponding to a mean decrease of 24, 25, and 47 %. A small overlap between the PTV and the rectum was found only in 1 patient in CT2 (0.2 cm(3)). The resulting mean rectum (without hydrogel) V75, V70, V60, V50 increased from 0 %, 0 %, 0.6 %, 10 % in CT1 to 0.1 %, 1.2 %, 6 %, 20 % in CT2, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Treatment planning based on imaging shortly after hydrogel injection overestimates the actual hydrogel volume during the treatment as a result of not-yet-absorbed saline solution and air bubbles.

Current standards and future directions for prostate cancer radiation therapy

Definitive radiation therapy is a well-recognized curative treatment option for localized prostate cancer. A suitable technique, dose, target volume and the option of a combination with androgen deprivation therapy need to be considered. An optimal standard external beam radiotherapy currently includes intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy techniques with total doses of ≥76-78 Gy in conventional fractionation. Protons or carbon ions are alternatives available only in specific centers. Data from several randomized studies increasingly support the rationale for hypofractionated radiotherapy. A simultaneous integrated boost with dose escalation focused on a computed tomography/PET- or MRI/magnetic resonance spectroscopy-detected malignant lesion is one option to increase tumor control, with potentially no additional toxicity. The application of a spacer is a promising concept for optimal protection of the rectal wall.

Application of an interstitial and biodegradable balloon system for prostate-rectum separation during prostate cancer radiotherapy: a prospective multi-center study

Background and purpose

Rectal toxicity presents a significant limiting factor in prostate radiotherapy regimens. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of an implantable and biodegradable balloon specifically designed to protect rectal tissue during radiotherapy by increasing the prostate–rectum interspace.

Patients and methods

Balloons were transperineally implanted, under transrectal ultrasound guidance, into the prostate–rectum interspace in 27 patients with localized prostate cancer scheduled to undergo radiotherapy. Patients underwent two simulations for radiotherapy planning--the first simulation before implant, and the second simulation seven days post implant. The balloon position, the dimensions of the prostate, and the distance between the prostate and rectum were evaluated by CT/US examinations 1 week after the implant, weekly during the radiotherapy period, and at 3 and 6 months post implant. Dose-volume histograms of pre and post implantation were compared. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study period.

Results

Four of 27 patients were excluded from the evaluation. One was excluded due to a technical failure during implant, and three patients were excluded because the balloon prematurely deflated. The balloon status was evaluated for the duration of the radiotherapy period in 23 patients. With the balloon implant, the distance between the prostate and rectum increased 10-fold, from a mean 0.22 ± 0.2 cm to 2.47 ± 0.47 cm. During the radiotherapy period the balloon length changed from 4.25 ± 0.49 cm to 3.81 ± 0.84 cm and the balloon height from 1.86 ± 0.24 cm to 1.67 ± 0.22 cm. But the prostate-rectum interspace distance remained constant from beginning to end of radiotherapy: 2.47 ± 0.47 cm and 2.41 ± 0.43 cm, respectively. A significant mean reduction in calculated rectal radiation exposure was achieved. The implant procedure was well tolerated. The adverse events included mild pain at the perineal skin and in the anus. Three patients experienced acute urinary retention which resolved in a few hours following conservative treatment. No infections or thromboembolic events occurred during the implant procedure or during the radiotherapy period.

Conclusion

The transperineal implantation of the biodegradable balloon in patients scheduled to receive radiotherapy was safe and achieved a significant and constant gap between the prostate and rectum. This separation resulted in an important reduction in the rectal radiation dose. A prospective study to evaluate the acute and late rectal toxicity is needed.

Interstitial biodegradable balloon for reduced rectal dose during prostate radiotherapy: results of a virtual planning investigation based on the pre- and post-implant imaging data of an international multicenter study

PURPOSE

To evaluate dose reduction caused by the implantation of an interstitial inflatable and biodegradable balloon device aiming to achieve lower rectal doses with virtual 3D conformal external beam radiation treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An inflatable balloon device was placed, interstitially and under transrectal ultrasound guidance, into the rectal-prostate interspace prior treatment initiation of 26 patients with localized prostate cancer, who elected to be treated with radiotherapy (3D CRT or IMRT). The pre- and post-implant CT imaging data of twenty two patients were collected (44 images) for the purpose of the 3D conformal virtual planning presented herein.

RESULTS

The dorsal prostate-ventral rectal wall separation resulted in an average reduction of the rectal V70% by 55.3% (± 16.8%), V80% by 64.0% (± 17.7%), V90% by 72.0% (± 17.1%), and V100% by 82.3% (± 24.1%). In parallel, rectal D2 ml and D0.1 ml were reduced by 15.8% (± 11.4%) and 3.9% (± 6.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Insertion of the biodegradable balloon into the prostate-rectum interspace is similar to other published invasive procedures. In this virtual dose distribution analysis, the balloon insertion resulted in a remarkable reduction of rectal volume exposed to high radiation doses. This effect has the potential to keep the rectal dose lower especially when higher than usual prostate dose escalation protocols or hypo-fractionated regimes are used. Further prospective clinical investigations on larger cohorts and more conformal radiation techniques will be necessary to define the clinical advantage of the biodegradable interstitial tissue separation device.